Here We Go Again: Arctic Ice Free By 2030

Will these prognostications ever end?

Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer by 2030s, say scientists – this would have global, damaging and dangerous consequences

The Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer by the 2030s, even if we do a good job of reducing emissions between now and then. That’s the worrying conclusion of a new study in Nature Communications.

Predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean have a long and complicated history, and the 2030s is sooner than most scientists had thought possible (though it is later than some had wrongly forecast). What we know for sure is the disappearance of sea ice at the top of the world would not only be an emblematic sign of climate breakdown, but it would have global, damaging and dangerous consequences.

Remember this?

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

That was September, 2012, when all the media was running with it. Remember when Al Gore said in 2009 “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” Of course, the cult media later tried to cover for him when this didn’t happen.

We’ve had ice free by 2018, ice free by 2016, predictions for doom by 2035, 2040, 2050, and more. What happens when this doesn’t happen? Who pays the price for this in the scientific community and the credentialed media who ran with it?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Here We Go Again: Arctic Ice Free By 2030”

  1. wildman says:

    and as always send money and curtail your life and all will be well.

  2. H says:

    Teach seems to have left out the fact that currently the minimum ice extent in September runs around 88% ice free
    Whether)when it goes to 100% the difference between them and now isn’t all that much
    In 2030 I can forsee him crowing “see it is not yet 100%!!” When it is 97% ice free

  3. H says:

    As for curtailing ones life? Many of those who are cc limste change deniers EILL be curtailing their own lives as they either die off or stop driving because of old age

  4. […] Pirates Cove […]

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The very first sentence from the Nature Communications article:

    The sixth assessment report of the IPCC assessed that the Arctic is projected to be on average practically ice-free in September near mid-century under intermediate and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, though not under low emissions scenarios, based on simulations from the latest generation Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models.

    Of course the IPCC sixth assessment is the scientific consensus as of March 2023.

    In free societies, university scientists are free to explore, experiment, calculate, model and report the results of their efforts, as did Kim et al (2023) did. This is a messy endeavor, and any single report is subject to being incorporated as part of the scientific consensus on a particular issue, including arctic sea ice. This is how it works.

  6. H says:

    Yes teach he said that SOME models said that there was a 75% chance that it COULD be ice free
    He did not say that it WOULD be ice free
    Big difference, right ?

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    nuDeniers: “Of course the Earth is warming. Who said it isn’t? We only question the so-called cause, that a minuscule increase in a trace gas can cause so-called catastrophic warming. The Earth cools and warms naturally. How is today’s so-called global warming different from the Medieval Warm Period?? Unless you can find SUVs from 1100 your so-called “theory” is busted! Why does every so-called solution involve bankrupting and controlling the white Americans who built the modern world? We prefer you commies just say ‘Thank You!’ and get out of our way.”

    • alanstorm says:

      Amazing – Elwood attempts parody and comes closer to reality than before.

      There have been several warm periods in historical times, such as the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Climate Optimum. There have been warmer (and colder) periods in the geological record as well. The problem for the Climate Cultists is to demonstrate why THIS period is “unprecedented” when it clearly is not. This has NOT been done yet, despite all the screeching about Climate Doom.

      Why does every so-called solution involve bankrupting and controlling the white Americans who built the modern world?

      Why do you feel the need to inject race into a subject that does not involve it? It undercuts your case. Other than that, you are correct – EVERY solution to CLIMATE DOOM! (pat. pending) involves more government control. IOW, “Our crappy arguments aren’t convincing enough people! We need the threat of government force!”

      Sorry, child, the scientific method says you’re full of Used Food: The Cult makes predictions, the predictions don’t occur, but the theory is not adjusted. It’s a religion.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Sorry, little one, the scientific method says you have no idea about the scientific method other than you can’t understand it. Theories enable predictions, e.g., more atmospheric CO2 results in more warming.

        Regarding race, the Republican Party is conservative and is over 95% white folks.

        Denierism is a cult.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Rimjob: Theories enable predictions

          Yeah, they do.

        • James Lewis says:

          Dear Elwood:

          “Theories enable predictions, e.g., more atmospheric CO2 results in more warming.”

          No. The ability to ACCURATELY predict is one of the requirements for a theory to be a Scientific Theory. A generalized claim is not used as proof and neither is the word “consensus” used as proof.

          If we take the earth’s atmosphere measurements as accurate, and we know that the results have been disputed/discussed to the point that the historical results, i.e. the medieval warm period, must be denied despite undeniable records.

          And given that civilization expanded and life was better during the time that the earth was warmer, you would think that scientists would be welcoming the thought that Canada could become a vast wheat producer while studying on how to overcome the possible negative effects so often touted.

          Yet they don’t.

          Why? Money and power, dear Elwood. The two things that have harmed mankind since day 1.

          And you just jump up and down while yelling, “Me Too! Me Too!”

  8. Professor Hale says:

    I’ve been to the Arctic. It would be just fine with a little less ice.

    • david7134 says:

      I flew over the north aspect of the China Sea and it was full of ice at a time when they were claiming massively reduced ice in the artic.

  9. Jl says:

    Alternate headline: “climate scam re-scheduled”, again…

Pirate's Cove